.243 cal. ?
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  :| |:
-> Gun & Firearm Discussions
#16: Re: .243 cal. ? Author: SwampFox, Location: Destin, Florida PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:51 am
    ----
Glockman,
The 243 is a fine round. I just like the 260 better due to bullet weight selection. That is the reason I do not own a "put together" 243 at this moment. If you have not bought the 243 yet, take a look at a 260 with a 1-8 twist barrel.

If you have the 243, the answer is that it can be used for dogs to deer without a problem. So you are good to go in both directions.
Ed
#17: Re: .243 cal. ? Author: Pumpkinslinger, Location: NC foothills PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:49 pm
    ----
Like SwampFox I picked a .260 over the .243 because of bullet selection. But keep in mind I was looking more for a "light deer gun" than a "varmint gun".

Friends who shoot .243s seem to love them.
#18: Re: .243 cal. ? Author: glockman55, Location: Michigan PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:15 pm
    ----
Thanks Guys, I just thought I would try to pick a cal. that would work for a few different applications. and another excuse to buy another cal. I do have a 30-30 and a 7 mag. and would like to get a .270 or .280 some day too. You can never have enough. Laughing
#19: .243 cal. Conversion Idea Author: MGKelly, Location: G. R. Michigan PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:32 pm
    ----
Hi all,

I'm new here but I couldn't resist the .243 thread, so heres my bone-head/pipe-dream idea for the Ishapore 2A1 (stripped down for a TAC/Sniper role) wtf

I'm guessing were talking about the .243WIN cartridge? The case has near identical dimentions as the .308WIN except for the smaller neck. I have an Ishapore 2A1 (7.62x51 NATO) that with only a barrel change these rifles would be easily converted to .243WIN. Since the rifles are manufactured to modern specs and swapping in a new barrel will only strengthen them, you could really find out what that .243 will do! The action length is the perfect fit, and I can cycle .243 snap-caps through the .308 action with out a hic-up, which means the original magazines will work with out any modifications!

Anyways just a thought... Shiner

M. G.
#20: Re: .243 cal. ? Author: Pumpkinslinger, Location: NC foothills PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 11:57 pm
    ----
MGKelly, take a look at the .260 Rem. Its a .308 necked down to .264 and, in my opinion, is more versatile than the .243.
#21: Re: .243 cal. ? Author: MGKelly, Location: G. R. Michigan PostPosted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:14 pm
    ----
Pumpkinslinger wrote:
MGKelly, take a look at the .260 Rem. Its a .308 necked down to .264 and, in my opinion, is more versatile than the .243.

If the cartridge OAL and dimentions are close enough on the Remmington as it is on most all of the .xxxWIN series I'm sure it would be no problem the 2A1 has an action length just made for the .243-.270-.308 WIN family of rifle ammo. Being a believer in delivering more PROJECTILE downrange whenever possible the .260 does make more sense. The .308 isn't known for its "ultraflat" trajectory, I wonder how flat and how fast you could get a .260 to go (safely, that is).

M. G. Confused
#22: Re: .243 cal. ? Author: 1895ss, Location: Not Here...!! PostPosted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:11 pm
    ----
MGKelly wrote:
I wonder how flat and how fast you could get a .260 to go (safely, that is).M. G. Confused

Aprox 3100 fps (100 gr) to 2600 fps (160 gr)

data.hodgdon.com/cartridge_load.asp
data.hodgdon.com/cartridge_load.asp
#23: Re: .243 cal. ? Author: SingleShotLover, Location: Illinois PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 5:14 am
    ----
Although countless deer, antelope and more than a few black bear have been killed with most of the 6MMs (.243 Winchester, 6MM Remington etc.) and I have shot a few deer and many coyotes using the .243. I am just not comfortable with any cartridges for medium to large game under .25 caliber. This is only a personal prejudice and anyone who dotes on these cartridges is welcome to do so. The .243 can be brilliantly accurate and a great coyote gun (though maybe a bit hard on pelts). If used for deer, premium bullets in the 90 to 100-grain range should be used and shots taken carefully.

A further consideration is for the handloader: The .243 Winchester is said to occasionally show unpredictable pressure spikes even with safe loads. I have never experienced this but it is an issue to be considered.
#24: Re: .243 cal. ? Author: MGKelly, Location: G. R. Michigan PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 6:56 am
    ----
I believe it has to do with what it is one is trying to accomplish, the military is a good example of how one's thinking can change (albeit SLOWLY) over the years. Sleep

Since the early 1900's the cartridge to beat was the .30, (30.06 to be more exact) and served until the early 1960's, but we haven't fought any trench or wide open shooting wars in a while. Then we went the opposite direction to .223 and have used that for near 40 years (with a blend of 7.62 mixed in: M-60, M14). Most combat takes place at 100 yards or less and 30.06 is just a little over powered (if you could get the bad guys to stand singlefile facing you while you shoot them you could get at least 6 of 'em at a time!) and unless it's chambered in a relatively heavy rifle (M-1) the recoil leaves a bit to be desired. I don't have a lot of faith in the 5.56mm either, yes I know they are capable of one shot/one kill performance, but I just like being able to throw bigger rocks than my fellow caveman. Laughing

Now they're looking at 6.8 SPC and some other 6.x stuff and best of all: finaly considering dumping that confounded gas tube for a gas piston system (the AR rifles have needed a gas piston since day one) maybe now the AR will be accurate, clean, and reliable. ...but thats another story.

Military requirements aren't all that different from sporting requirements though; you need a cartridge/rifle with enough bullet, enough speed, flat trajectory, and low enough recoil for an accurate followup shot if necessary... oh, yeah, and do it every time!

...and then there's the shooters... Nananana



Who knows, maybe the 6mm family of ammo can do it with the right combination of case , powder, and bullet design. It's worth watching.

M. G.
#25: Re: .243 cal. ? Author: Dimitri,  PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 2:18 pm
    ----
MGKelly wrote:
Now they're looking at 6.8 SPC and some other 6.x stuff and best of all: finaly considering dumping that confounded gas tube for a gas piston system (the AR rifles have needed a gas piston since day one) maybe now the AR will be accurate, clean, and reliable.

I wouldn't count on ether happening any time soon. Both have been looked at but don't provide enough of a benefit to make a switch from the reports I've read. Smile

The AR family of rifles seems to be doing well, considering the Army recently adopted the XM110 sniper rifles, a AR based rifle in 308Win without a piston. And the Navy's been using them for their SEALS for a long time, and the Marines have purchased more of the Navy units. Smile

Nevermind the countless Special Forces units world wide which prefer and use the AR-15 series of rifles verses the alternatives such as the HK G36, Styer AUG, SA80, SIG 550 etc which most of them ARE indeed piston gas system firearms.

Dimitri
#26: Re: .243 cal. ? Author: MGKelly, Location: G. R. Michigan PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:19 pm
    ----
I don't have fond memories of 16A1's and A2's, especially after long engagements with numerous bursts of full auto mixed in. The carbon-crud would just run out of the bottom of the receiver and the mag-well almost like water. When they did malfunction half the battle was trying to find the location of the problem due to the thick even grayish coating everything had from the gas tube blasting all the fouling straight into the receiver, magazine, and trigger group. When we cleaned them we dunked them in big drums of parts cleaner to get the thickest crud off, then we finished cleaning in the normal fashion. Confused

It doesn't suprise me that XM110 was accepted, in the sniper role the need to hose down an area on full auto doesn't arise too often. As a sniper you take a couple of shots and its off to find a new hide, because the rifle is fired less often means it is easier to keep clean so the fact it's not a piston driven action in this case would not have a lot of bearing on the choice.

The piston rifles have their drawbacks too...

I find the need for a recoil-buffer in both my SKS and WASR, and is essentially is for the optics. My SKS has a receiver-cover scope mount which fits perfectly and maintains zero, the buffer is installed to protect the scope from the "impact" of the bolt carrier/bolt assy. when it hits the rear of the receiver. I find the same thing in my AK clone, even though it has a siderail receiver mount when that boltcarrier/bolt hits the rear of the receiver, with out the buffers the optics would die an early death.

...and no, the recoil buffers don't really do much to reduce "felt recoil", they just protect the innerparts from beatting each other up.

Sorry, it's late and I'm blathering on... Point

gotta catch some sacktime!

Have a good one all,

M. G.
#27: Re: .243 cal. ? Author: alaskanativeson, Location: Rural Alaska PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 4:11 pm
    ----
SingleShotLover wrote:
...I am just not comfortable with any cartridges for medium to large game under .25 caliber...

I have to agree with this one. I see that a few people here have said the .243 is a good for elk. That is, of course, their choice to make. For myself I'd consider I was being unethical going after elk with a .243, they're just not enough of a cartridge for game that size. I'd consider it for mulies but only if I was going for antlerless. Can you kill an elk or a big mule deer with a .243? Yes. However I don't like having to rely on luck as one of my factors any more than I must.

I remember an article written by Bob Milek in Guns and Ammo magazine where he talked about the .243. He said when it first came out he thought he had the finest cartridge ever made, the magical thunderbolt from the hand of Zeus. When he had several years more experience losing elk at relatively close range with what he KNEW to be good solid hits he decided that it wasn't enough gun for the big wapiti. I'll agree with him.
#28: Re: .243 cal. ? Author: Morax, Location: Pittsburgh Pa PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 4:40 pm
    ----
from up close and personal experiance with a elk on a motorcycle (how he got the helmet on i donno) and also owning a .243 I would never go after an elk with it.. biggest i would go would be a larger end mule deer and that wouldnt be at extreme distance. from whitetail down though i would the .243 with no questions asked..
#29: Re: .243 cal. ? Author: MGKelly, Location: G. R. Michigan PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:12 am
    ----
Morax wrote:
from up close and personal experiance with a elk on a motorcycle (how he got the helmet on i donno) and also owning a .243...

Yeah, gettin' them helmets on them elk aint no easy matter, but the elk had a .243 too? I though it was only legal to Keep and Arm Bears! Confused

(Sorry, couldn't resist!)

The .243 is a great cartridge, very versatile, and I agree there is a certain upper-limit to what you can reliably take with it. I want enough bullet on target to do enough damage to the vitals to drop my target right about where I shot it. I say it that way cause over the years I've had to track or help track a few that refused to fall down when shot (no fun). At least one of those was a great heart/lung shot but my friend was using a .243 (soft-tip), he had shot a solid good sized 7 point, the bullet didn't seem to expand either (small exit hole). We tracked him probably 300-400yds, seemed like 400miles, in swampy Michigan scrub/jack pine, in the dark,

...up hill both ways! Laughing

Probably a lil off topic, has anyone seen the articles in some of the gun rags about deer hunting with the 5.56mm(AR)? I know folks do it, but it just seems a little too much on the small size. The only reason it's good at killing humans is because of the way it bounces around inside, not a good attribute for hunting I would think. Maybe a new thread?

M.G.
#30: Re: .243 cal. ? Author: Morax, Location: Pittsburgh Pa PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:47 am
    ----
MGK i agree and i am a very big propnant FOR the 243, but its like everything out there, if you as a hunter,owner,user, its up to you to feel compfy with what you are using for the critter you are going after, being undergunned is worse than missing with something bigger than needed!! where i hunt the 243 is more than enough for the whitetails and the g-hogs, but now if i go into the woods deeper i want something with a bit more a$$ behind it..
-> Gun & Firearm Discussions

All times are GMT - 7 Hours

Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  :| |:
Page 2 of 3